Loss of Wisdom

<Loss of Wisdom: Docile Bodies>

We live in a world of efficiency.

And that efficiency is backed up with diverse sophisticated systems of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy consists of specific procedures that authorities propose, and people follow. Doing so in the field of education brought about two inevitable results: mediocrity and docility of young minds.

Barry Schwartz seems to agree with me. In his lecture “Loss of Wisdom”, he argues of how moral wisdom derived from free-will and experience has disappeared due to the sophisticated procedures that have infiltrated the life-world of people, including children. He suggests an example to show a case when individual decision make better results than the docile one. Hospital janitors have a detailed script of what and how to do their job at which time. But do most experienced janitors follow such process? No, they don’t.  They don’t vacuum the visitor’s lounge when there are worried families all day. They clean some people’s room more than required when the patience were in comatose. After all, procedures can’t make every exceptional cases into a procedure, because the moment something deviates from the rule, then the procedure would be ineffective compared to the individual decisions. What procedure does is keep a "objective" but mediocre standard, but not care and human interactions. Individuals have moral skills to figure out what “doing right” means. The key of his lecture was that planned procedures hinder people from making more reasonable and moral decisions.

Same for public schools. Every modernized nation has a detailed school curriculum that includes what and how to teach and evaluate. The idea to take a minimal standard is fairly ok. It does not allow jeopardizing or too much deviation from the standard. But what most governments seem to do is overdo that. By being specific on what to learn, student’s range of thought can be expected and set by the authorities. But how do they resignate their curriculum? We have austere standardized test and federal/state grants to make schools function in a way they want. This method kills progdigal individuals and replace it with predictable ones.

Through this process, authorities can create a discourse* that they influence and get affected themselves. Discourse is like setting the agenda for a certain group. Standardized schools, standardized tests and standardized teachers make the production of discourse in a very minuscule size. Instead of setting an agenda in a wholesome scale, it is inserting the discourse for every single individual. Then what is the purpose of doing so? Or what is the expected result of setting the agenda for each and every individual?

Irascibly, ,t is making docile bodies**. Although it would be hard to prove that a government had an intention of doing so, and its expected results are such people, it can be inferred that the outcome of these policies are students who are obedient. It is almost frightening to see how juveniles from very young age seem to follow the social norms learned in school. Social norm itself may be regarded as a culture, but if it has an intention or a definite leading outcome, then it should be alerted of. Since it is less tangible, it would be hard to realize, which makes it more dangerous.

Then how are docile bodies made? Barry Schwartz does not elaborate in depth on this point. He just states that bureaucratic procedures make people dumb. But there are other scholars who have expanded the argument on the intention of doing so. Michelle Foucalt, on his book Surveillance and Punishment have explained various methods used to create virulent discourse and eventually docile bodies. Let me introduce the points he have made, and add my interpretations regarding the field of education.

[Space and Docile Bodies]

(1) Closure of Specific Spaces

It is important that the disciplined are located in a secluded area. Such area should be a place that the ruling entity has full control over. Instead of home-schooling or private enterprises (“Hagwons”), the government prefers public school where it owns and makes rules. Middlemen (in the case of schools teachers) can then have a concentrated control over the mass. Locating students in public schools makes them included in the system-world***, which is the juxtaposition**** of life-world*****, meaning an environment that individuals face undistorted communication, which are environments like students’ households.

(2) Preference of Minuscule Units

The first method is not the solution to the randomness or chaos that authorities want to avoid. Even in an enclosure, the mass can still rampage tentatively. Another key point is “how to use the ruling power”. Ruling entities should divide the profusing mass into minuscule parts so that their power is distributed for each part. For schools, all individuals should be given an assigned place to be at all times. This blockades individuals from others, and thus is easier measured, evaluated, controlled and utilized. Since the power is directed towards the individual, not an associate of individuals, the objects of the power function are helpless. Less digressed, more the power.

(3) Assigning Purpose for Each Space

This is the utilizing process of space. The authorities not only use empty rooms to separate individuals, but at best use them. This includes wards or cafeterias. The purpose of each territory is clearly denoted, which enhances efficiency and hinders students from practicing their free will. This is consistent with Ford’s fastidious division of labor. This system belittles individuals and change them into parts of systems.

(4) Ranking within the Utilized Space

The significance of hierarchy is that it differentiates and assigns dissimilar power for each individual. This is evident in schools. Ranking by age, grades and discipline is evident. Most Korean schools use test scores to allocate students in various classes. KMLA is one example too. Dorm rooms and desks are given in the order of GPA. Although the students who are influenced may be aware of this, what they have is a fragmented knowledge. They do not know when and how the knowledge of individuals would be utilized. This creates a panopticon-ic state. The students know that surveillance exists, but they do not know when and how the surveillance would occur, and how the information obtained from it would be used. Thus, students become vulnerable due to the information inequality.

[Tests and Docile Bodies]

Tests serve as determinants in Algebra. It differentiates and ranks individuals. By using measurements for immeasurable beings such as students’ capacity, it makes the objects of the test function believe that capacities are scalable when it is not. It also is a definite way of leading students as authorities want. By making the results influential upon the interests of students, it compels them to have an ego or have similar traits that are preferable for the test-makers. Test records students. It enables authorities to evaluate human beings. Shocking thing. To think about it, how can an individual be evaluated? Test is the most powerful tool that transforms egos into factual cases. Authorities acknowledge about the individuals they rule upon. By doing so, each individuals can be compared as coordinates on a plane. Then we have the mean, or the orthodox standard of an association. Persons can be measured in the sense of how much each of them is deviated from such standards or means. The pivotal result of test is “measurable individuals”. The data is utilized for various purposes, which the people in a passive position only know that such data exists, not knowing when and how it would be used.

This relates to the incongruous bureaucracy that Barry Schwartz is criticizing. It tries to standardize things that cannot be standardized. Bureaucracy makes humans passive. Instead of putting it in an active position, it idolizes efficiency and mechanics. Barry Schwartz seems to state that such passiveness is inefficient.

What Barry Schwartz presents is not much different from the previous analysis. Procedures make people docile, unable to make better decisions. Foucalt’s description only explains the process of doing so.